(O&M) &M) v. Versus
Case Details
RSA No. 3879 of of 1998 & COCP-361 of 2007 IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) Medi (since dece deceased) through his LRs. RSA No. 3879 of 1998(O&M) &M) ..…Appellant lants Kirori & Anr. (ii) Kirori Medi Versus Versus …Respondent ents 007 COCP No. 361 of 2007 ..…Petitione ioner …Responden dent Reserved on: 27.11.2 Pronounced on: 29.11 Uploaded on : 29.11 .11.2025 9.11.2025 1.2025 CORAM: HON’BL
Legal Reasoning
PTA N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate Argued by:- Mr. For the appellant. For t Mr. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate For the respondents. For t *** DEEPAK GUPTA, TA, J. The plaintiff of the suit has ap as approached this Court challengin nging the reversal of th of the decree passed in his favour by ur by the trial Court. 2. The suit for declaration concernin The had rning the property in dispute had been decreed by d by the trial Court on 31.01.1998. H y the 98. However, the appeal filed by the defendants (now (now respondents) was allowed dge, ed by the learned District Judge Faridabad, who ho vide judgment dated 05.09.1 09.1998 set aside the trial Court’ urt’s decree and dismi ismissed the plaintiff’s suit. 3. For convenience, parties are being r For c ing referred to by their status befor efore the trial Court. Th The trial Court record has been su n summoned and perused. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.29 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 1 of 4 RSA No. 3879 of of 1998 & COCP-361 of 2007 4. The genealogy is undisputed. One The ajjan, ne Malha had three sons—Chajjan Motha and Darya aryai. Chajjan left behind a son Har and Hari Singh, who died unmarried and issueless. The pre e present dispute pertains to the es e estate of Hari Singh. Motha had ad a son named Med edi, who is the plaintiff. Dariya ha a had a son Chet Ram, whose son sons Kirori and Amar S ar Singh are the defendants. 5. After the death of Hari Singh, t Afte the h, the plaintiff Medi claimed the property on the the basis of natural succession. The . The defendants, however, set up up a registered Will ill dated 30.05.1985 allegedly ex y executed by Hari Singh in thei their favour. 6. The trial Court framed The issues, and es, evaluated the evidence and disbelieved the the Will and then decreed the sui suit. In appeal, however, the Firs First Appellate Court r urt reversed the findings and held eld the Will as duly proved, thereb reby dismissing the pla e plaintiff’s suit. 7. Assailing the aforesaid reversal, Le Assa Learned counsel for the appellan llant contends that th at the First Appellate Court erred red in accepting the Will, which i ich is surrounded by su by suspicious circumstances. It is ar is argued that none of the attestin sting witnesses belong longed to the village of the testator isted ator, and no plausible reason existed for disinheriting ing the plaintiff. According to Ld. co counsel, the trial Court had rightl ightly discarded the Wi e Will. 8. Conversely, learned counsel for t Conv t the r the respondents submits that the Will is a register stered document and stands duly p f the uly proved by examining one of the attesting witness nesses. Reliance is placed upon th n the statement of DW2-Sohan La Lal, attesting witnes tness, who confirmed execution o nd on of the Will by Hari Singh and explained that h at his village is merely a mile awa away from that of the testator. H r. He submits that th t the Appellate Court rightly acc g no accepted the Will, warranting no interference. 9. This Court has considered submiss This missions of both the sides and ha has appraised the rec record carefully. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.29 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 2 of 4 RSA No. 3879 of of 1998 & COCP-361 of 2007 10. The relationship of the parties is The the s is admitted. The plaintiff is the father’s brother’ her’s son of the deceased Hari S s are ri Singh, while the defendants are father’s brother’s her’s grandsons. Under the Hindu S du Succession Act, neither party fall falls within Class I or C I or Class II heirs. Both fall in the cate , had category of agnates. Therefore, had it been a case of e of intestate succession, the estate tes in state would devolve upon agnates in terms of Sections tions 11 and 12 of the Act. However , the ever, once a Will is propounded, the question of natur atural succession arises only if the W the Will is not proved. 11. A Will must be proved in accordanc A W dian dance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act a ct and Section 68 of the Evidenc ence Act. These provisions requir quire execution by the the testator, attestation by at least ation east two witnesses, and examination of at least one a ne attesting witness in Court. Once sfied, Once these conditions are satisfied the onus shifts t fts to the challenger to establish s any, ish suspicious circumstances, if any sufficient to disca discard the Will. 12. In present case, the Will (Ex.D-1) In p 1) is a registered document. It i It is scribed by Chajja ajjan (DW1), who stated that it was ance, was written at Hari Singh’s instance read over to him him, and executed by him in the the presence of both the attestin sting witnesses. He al e also proved the corresponding r . 119 ing register entry at Serial No. 119 1985. dated 30.05.1985 13. DW2 Sohan Lal, one of the attestin DW2 d the esting witnesses, fully supported the execution of the the Will. He testified that he knew new Hari Singh well, that his villag illage Bahin is merely a ely about one mile from Hari Singh’s gh’s village Pahari; that the Will wa l was scribed in his pr s presence; that its contents were ere read over to the testator; tha that Hari Singh thumb umb-marked it after admitting its c its correctness; that both witnesse esses attested it therea ereafter, and that they all appeare eared before the Sub-Registrar, wh who again read over over the contents, after which Ha h Hari Singh confirmed and got i ot it registered. 14. DW3 Kirori, one of the beneficiarie DW3 used iaries, deposed that Hari Singh used to reside with th th the defendants and that they p also ey performed his last rites. He also proved the partit 3). artition orders (Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3). JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.29 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 3 of 4 RSA No. 3879 of of 1998 & COCP-361 of 2007 15. The objections raised by the appe The appellant do not create any legall gally recognised suspi uspicious circumstance. The law d w does not mandate that attestor stors must belong to t to the same village as the testato tator. The proximity of villages (on (one mile apart) nega negates any suspicion. The Will its ll itself records that Hari Singh wa was living with the d e defendants and was satisfied wi d with their services. Disinheritanc ance by itself is not a ot a suspicious circumstance, as a testator is free to choose hi e his beneficiaries. Th There is no allegation or evidence ence that the testator was not in t in a sound disposing sing state of mind. Hari Singh liv lived for almost nine years afte after executing the W e Will and never revoked it. Th the . This significantly strengthens the genuineness of t of the document. Though, registrat stration is not mandatory for a Wil Will, but when done, i ne, it is a strong supporting circumst umstance unless rebutted. 16. The evidence on record, thus, fully The ents. ully satisfies statutory requirements The suspicious ci us circumstances alleged are neithe either substantiated nor of a natur ature warranting reject ejection of the Will. 17. Consequently, upon appreciation o Cons n of the entire evidence, this Cour ourt is in agreement ent with the First Appellate Court 1985 urt that the Will dated 30.05.1985 (Ex.D-1) stands d ds duly proved. There is no infirmit irmity or perversity in its finding. B g. By virtue of the sai said Will, the defendants rightfu Hari htfully inherited the estate of Har Singh. No ground und for interference is made out. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is held to Acco to be devoid of any merit, and i nd is hereby dismissed issed. Parties shall bear their own co n costs. COCP No. 361 of 1 of 2007 : 19. Dismissed as not pressed for. Dism 29.11.2025 Jiten Whe Whe hether speaking/reasoned hether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.29 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 4 of 4